Tze M. Loo: The Okinawa Question
[Tze M. Loo is an assistant professor of East Asian history at the University of Richmond, Virginia.]
I have been thinking about Yukio Hatoyama’s sense of history since he stepped down as Japan’s prime minister last week, citing his failure to relocate the U.S. Marine air base out of Okinawa as one reason.
Why did Hatoyama make this promise in the first place, given that the relocation of the Futenma base is a thorny, complicated issue that has been stalled for the last 14 years?
Was it because Hatoyama understood the history of Okinawa’s sacrifices for the mainland, which has resulted in Okinawa’s hosting of 75 percent of U.S. forces in Japan today? Did he feel a responsibility to address the history of tensions between Okinawan communities chafing under the continuing burden of military bases, and the consistent lack of political will at the center to rectify this situation?
Did it come from a sense of personal responsibility for his grandfather Ichiro Hatoyama’s reported offhand comment in 1955, when he was prime minister, that Okinawa was an “American trust possession,” at a time when Okinawans were smarting from having been left under U.S. administration while the rest of Japan regained its sovereignty?
Whatever his reasons, it was a promise heavy in historical and emotional significance, which is why Hatoyama’s failure to deliver on it had so much political impact....
Indeed, the new prime minister, Naoto Kan, has made the Japanese economy his primary focus. Regarding Futenma, he reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the May 28 agreement with the U.S. while promising (vaguely) to give attention to reducing Okinawa’s base burdens.
Kan did, however, mention at a press conference that he had recently started reading a book on Okinawa to deepen his understanding of its history. Let’s hope that his reading helps him understand the weight and complexity of the base issue, and that it gives him enough of a sense of history to see why he must not lose sight of it.
Read entire article at NYT
I have been thinking about Yukio Hatoyama’s sense of history since he stepped down as Japan’s prime minister last week, citing his failure to relocate the U.S. Marine air base out of Okinawa as one reason.
Why did Hatoyama make this promise in the first place, given that the relocation of the Futenma base is a thorny, complicated issue that has been stalled for the last 14 years?
Was it because Hatoyama understood the history of Okinawa’s sacrifices for the mainland, which has resulted in Okinawa’s hosting of 75 percent of U.S. forces in Japan today? Did he feel a responsibility to address the history of tensions between Okinawan communities chafing under the continuing burden of military bases, and the consistent lack of political will at the center to rectify this situation?
Did it come from a sense of personal responsibility for his grandfather Ichiro Hatoyama’s reported offhand comment in 1955, when he was prime minister, that Okinawa was an “American trust possession,” at a time when Okinawans were smarting from having been left under U.S. administration while the rest of Japan regained its sovereignty?
Whatever his reasons, it was a promise heavy in historical and emotional significance, which is why Hatoyama’s failure to deliver on it had so much political impact....
Indeed, the new prime minister, Naoto Kan, has made the Japanese economy his primary focus. Regarding Futenma, he reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the May 28 agreement with the U.S. while promising (vaguely) to give attention to reducing Okinawa’s base burdens.
Kan did, however, mention at a press conference that he had recently started reading a book on Okinawa to deepen his understanding of its history. Let’s hope that his reading helps him understand the weight and complexity of the base issue, and that it gives him enough of a sense of history to see why he must not lose sight of it.